Why did God do Satan’s bidding?

[John V]

Civics lesson:

The Declaration of Independence carries no legal weight in the USA (or anywhere else for that matter). You may as well quote the Articles of Confederation.

NSS. However, definitions of rights presented previously in the thread do not require legal weight.

---

Technically, I couldn't bestow the rights, no.

Why not?

As I've already explained to you, if I wish to secure a right for myself but deny another that right despite it's presenting a compelling claim (or having a compelling claim presented for it, to leverage the notion above), I will have lost any substance to my own appeals for those rights.

Plenty of animal rights advocates present claims for animal rights beyond those recognized by society in general. They find those claims compelling. You don't. Do rights boil down to opinions?

And BTW, when you base your argument on consistency, pointing out your hypocrisy is a valid argument, not a fallacy.

As a side note, since I see you're attempting to push sapience on yet another person, those rights animals currently have are not justified by sapience, but by sentience. So no, you might really like to talk about sapience, but you're the only one doing so thusfar. If you want to go that route, I'll go down it with you, but it actually just gets shittier for god......

No, I'd rather stick to sentience. Previously you said, "If I deny another sentient being a right we have determined originates in sentience then who am I to protest when another labors to deny me that right?"

What rights originate in sentience, and who is this "we"?

---

Why is sapience the cutoff? This is special pleading

No, it isn't. I explained you why. You need to be theorethically able to claim rights to have rights. Rocks can't have rights. Non sapient animals can't have rights.

You didn't explain it, you asserted it. I showed counterexamples. Babies can't claim rights, but they have them, as adult humans grant them. Neither dogs nor ants can claim rights, but we grant greater rights to dogs than to ants. So, yes, non sapient animals can have rights. Ask Michael Vick!

No, but the possibility of making claims is a prerequisite to the recognition (or not) of such claims. And there are rights that belong to all sapient beings.

Such as? Why the cutoff at sapience?

We've noted sentience and sapience. You've conveniently tried to limit rights to sapience. Suppose God has some -ience greater than sapience? Why can't he deny rights to sapients, as you try to deny them to sentients?

I confused the terms, but the general meaning was clear from my previous sentences. Yes I meant sapient beings. Although animald still have a different status from "things".

I can own an animal. You can't come and take my cat away from me. Although, as it can't claim rights, you don't think it has rights.

And even if human had no rights against god, god would still be a vicious bastard. Humans have feelings, and causing pain to innocent creatures for trivial reasons is what defines "vicious bastard".

A man who tortures kittens for a bet is a vicious bastard even if kittens don't have rights, after all.

So you're saying that Satan is a vicious bastard. OK.